Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Currently claims 1-15 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the coiled tube segregates the high voltage supply from the robot manifold plate, wherein the coiled tube is in fluid communication with a solvent source must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Furthermore the threads claimed must be shown in the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Figure 8, shows the claimed limitations, but it is unclear how the coiled tube both segregates the high voltage supply from the robot manifold plate and is in fluid communication with a solvent source. If the coiled tube has the high voltage supply within it, how is it in fluid communication with a solvent source, or, if the coiled tube has the solvent therein, how does the coil (which is above the manifold plate) segregate the high voltage supply from the robot manifold plate.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims require “the coiled tube segregates the high voltage supply from the robot manifold plate, wherein the coiled tube is in fluid communication with a solvent source.” The drawings and specification disclose “In certain embodiments, the electrostatic atomizer 10 can further include a paint inlet isolation tube 531, wherein the coiled tube 430 is wrapped around the paint inlet isolation tube 531.” Therefore, its unclear from the claims in view of the specification and drawings how the coiled tube is in fluid communication with a solvent source, when the tube is a separate element which is then wrapped around the paint inlet isolation tube. Therefore, there has been no reasonably conveyance to one skilled n the art from applicants disclosure how the coiled tube is in fluid communication with a solvent source, when the specification and figures shows no fluid communication (as there are two separate tubes).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cup washing component" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the flid tip" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a bell cup center axis” in line 2 is double inclusion, as the bell cup axis is already claims in claim 7 from which this claim depends.
The term “high” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “high voltage” has been rendered indefinite by use of the term high, as it is unclear what constitutes a “high voltage.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steur (U.S. 8,851,397).
With respect to claim 1, Steur an electrostatic atomizer (figures 1-6) comprising: an applicator (shown in figure 3, at 11) rotatably attached to a distal end of a turbine and a shaft (as shown in figure 1-2, motor shaft 15 rotating the cup component of 11/12)); and an applicator washing component (the washing line of 20 and associated lines therefrom) comprising a solvent fluid line (20, prior to split off to 21 and within 60) configured to separately dispense a cleaning solvent (within 20) to an external applicator surface (via 54, see figure 5) by an external solvent line (external line of 54) and an internal applicator surface (see figure 6, via arrows of 20 going within 44) by an internal solvent line (the upper line of 20), wherein the cup washing component is distinct from a coating fluid line (line 18).
With respect to claim 2, Steur discloses the external solvent line diverges from the solvent fluid line upstream of a mounting member (as seen I figure 6, upstream of where the mounting of 60 is located).
With respect to claim 3, Steur discloses the external solvent line diverges from the solvent fluid line within a fluid tip (the fluid tip being that surrounding 54).
With respect to claim 4, Steur discloses the external solvent line diverges to a plurality of external cup wash outlets (as seen in figure 4, the outlet of 54 into 58), wherein the plurality of external cup wash outlets are radially evenly spaced about a fluid tip center axis (as shown in figure 4).
With respect to claim 6, Steur discloses the fluid tip further comprises a fluid tip insert (insert 42, its end inserted within 60) component radially circumscribing the external cup wash outlets (see figure 5) and wherein the fluid tip insert component is configured to fit into a splash plate (splash plate 60).
With respect to claim 7, Steur discloses the applicator is a bell cup (see figures 1-6), wherein the bell cup comprises: an external cup wash groove (groove adjacent to 56) circumscribing the bell cup around a cup base (as shown in figures 5-6); an internal cup wash groove (55) circumscribing a bell cup center axis axially behind the cup base (as seen in figure 5); and a threaded surface axially between the external cup wash groove and internal cup wash groove (threads between 60 and 16).
With respect to claim 8, Steur discloses the bell cup further comprises a splash plate hard stop (shown in figure 5, at the bottom of the threads, where the threading ends, forming a hard stop for where the splash plate can be threaded onto) at axially between the threaded surface and external cup wash groove (as shown in figure 5, between the threads and 55).
With respect to claim 9, Steur discloses the threaded surface and splash plate hard stop are radially centered about a bell cup center axis (as shown in figure 5, as both the threads and hard stop are about the center axis of the bell cup).
With respect to claim 10, Steur discloses a splash plate system (having the splash plate 60), wherein the splash plate system comprises:
a splash plate base (the bottom base of 60, about the threads); and a splash plate comprising a plurality of splash plate holes (apertures within 49 going to 47: column 7 rows 60-65) radially evenly spaced about a splash plate center axis (see figure 5).
With respect 11, Steur discloses the splash plate base comprises a threaded portion (threads of 60) configured to threadedly connect to a bell cup threaded surface (threads of 14/16, see figure 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steur.
With respect to claim 5, Steur discloses the plurality of the plurality of external cup wash outlets, but fails to disclose the plurality of external cup wash outlets are at between a 40 degree and a 50 degree angle relative to the fluid tip center axis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the wash outlet angles of Steur between 40 and 50 degrees relative to the fluid tip center axis, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (the outlets, and fluid tip center axis, and having an angle relative to one another), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II-A). Please note in the instant application applicant has failed to disclose any criticality for the given angles range.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steur in view of Seitz (U.S. 2020/0047197).
With respect to claim 12, Steur discloses splash plate base comprises a splash plate base protrusion configured to fit within a splash plate notch (where it fits within the notch of the bell cup), but fails to disclose wherein the splash plate base is fixed to the splash plate by a plurality of pins.
Seitz, paragraphs 0026-0027, discloses it being known to use connections between the splash plate and bell cup to be screws to allow the two to be secured as desired.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the screws of Seitz into the system of Steur, to allow the two elements to be securely affixed, as such means of connecting the two elements via screws is known to be used in the art to connect the two elements together.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steur in view of Yamada (U.S. 2018/0221896).
With respect to claim 13, Steur discloses comprising a shaping air system, wherein the shaping air system (figure 2, having 50) comprises:
a shroud (shroud having 50), wherein a first concentric ring is configured to direct shaping air toward an edge of an applicator (having the ring of hole 50 applying air to 12), wherein the shroud comprises a plurality of concentric rings of holes and wherein a second concentric ring is configured to direct shaping air away from the edge of the applicator, and wherein the plurality of concentric rings are configured to generate a shaping air spin against a direction of rotation of the applicator.
Yamada, figure 8, discloses their shroud has two sets of rings 10 and 12, disclosing such application of air holes 10 and 12 allow for allow for the desire shear liquid threads of pain released from the cup and allow for the shape of a spray pattern to be adjusted (paragraphs 0054-0056).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the two rings of holes as disclosed by Yamada into the system of Steur to further improve shaping of the spray pattern from the rotary sprayer.
With respect to claim 14, Steur as modified discloses the limitations of claim 13, but fails to disclose discloses a lower shaping air component, wherein the lower shaping air component is configured to limit negative pressure region sizes behind the applicator, wherein the lower shaping air component comprises a smooth inner surface substantially parallel to an inner surface of the applicator.
Yamada, figure 6, includes a lower shaping air component, 14 figure 3, which discloses a smooth inner surface that is substantially parallel to an inner surface of the applicator (see figure 3, the applicators surface which 41 is parallel with), where the shape of the shield member is noted enhancing washing performance of the adhered paint due to eliminating angled corners (paragraph 0060).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the lower shaping air component of Yamada into the system of Steur to improve the washing performance of paint to the apparatus. Furthermore, by eliminating sharp corners pressure which would build up with such corners would be negated, as would any pockets of unwanted negative pressure, as the device now has a curvature about it to improve fluid flow (noted for the washing fluid, but also applicable to air flow).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steur in view of Hansinger (U.S. 5,947,377).
With respect to claim 15, Steur discloses
a high voltage supply (24); a ground (26), and a solvent line 20, but fails to disclose
a grounded robot manifold plate; and
a coiled tube, wherein the coiled tube segregates the high voltage supply from the robot manifold plate, wherein the coiled tube is in fluid communication with a solvent source.
Hansinger, figure 13 and column 14 rows 20-45, discloses a grounded liquid supply control device (claim 26, figure 13 shows 330 is grounded, and thus 310 that 330 is on would then also be grounded) with a coiled tube 332, the tube 332, being in the shape of a spiral, extends the length of the fluid path from the supply device 330 to the rotary cup 200 and forms a voltage isolator that is long enough to increase the total electrical resistance of the paint column between the rotary atomizer 300 and the supply valve 330 to reduce the electrical current through the paint column to an extent that the paint being charged at the rotary cup 200 does not build up a charge in the rotary atomizer which could cause a potential hazard to an operator or cause the rotary atomizer 300 to fail the FM7260 test. Showing that the tube is insulated to prevent voltage passing while also allowing electric current through the paint column (albeit reduced), allowing for the paint to be charged but not to have a build up of charge.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the coil, grounding, and fluid/voltage flow as disclosed by Hansinger into the rotary sprayer of Steur allowing for improved electrical current and paint flow without build up of charge in the rotary atomizer (as understood the coil is essentially increasing the length of the conduit allowing for more dissipation and reduction of the current through the paint column and decrease charge once the paint reaches the rotary atomizer).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A GREENLUND whose telephone number is (571)272-0397. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arthur Hall can be reached at 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH A GREENLUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752